Middle East:
Clinton's praise of the Israelis on the Jerusalem
question ignores concessions made going into Camp David.

By FAISAL
HUSSEINI

The Palestinian team left Camp David last week sorely
disappointed--and genuinely surprised. For almost a
decade now, we have encouraged the United States'
involvement in the peace process, convinced that the
participation of an objective third party would help to
correct the profound imbalance of power between the
parties and give us all greater confidence that any
agreements reached would be promptly and fairly
implemented. We had come to Camp David hoping that
President Clinton would act with the sound judgment and
fair-mindedness that had been instrumental in bringing
the parties together in the past.

So we have been baffled by Clinton's remarks at the end
of the summit and in recent days. First, he announced in
no uncertain terms that Israel had "moved forward
more from its initial position" on Jerusalem than
had the Palestinians. Then he raised the specter of
authorizing the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to
Jerusalem and suggested that our relationship with the
U.S. would be adversely affected if we did not make
further concessions.

As we work to determine how best to proceed at this
difficult juncture, we think it is important to respond
to Clinton's comments. Are we, the Palestinians, being
inflexible regarding Jerusalem? What is a fair
compromise?

Here are the facts:

Israel took control of West Jerusalem in 1948, expelling
approximately 25,000 Palestinians from that part of the
city. After seizing the remainder of the city in 1967,
Israel dramatically expanded its municipal boundaries
into occupied East Jerusalem, effectively annexing vast
areas of what had been Palestinian land. The U.N.
Security Council unanimously condemned Israel's efforts
to change the legal status of the city, and the
international community has continued to decline
recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any part of
Jerusalem, East or West.

For the past 30 years, however, Israel has ignored
international opinion and has undertaken construction of
settlements on a massive scale. At the same time, it has
placed strict limits on Palestinian construction in
Jerusalem, imposed a permanent military closure on
Jerusalem and enacted legislation to force Palestinians
to emigrate from the city.

Now, as a "compromise," Israel offers
Palestinian residents of Jerusalem a small degree of
control over municipal matters in Arab neighborhoods in
East Jerusalem, in return for Palestinian agreement to
Israeli sovereignty over all of the city and Israeli
control over zoning and land use. Meanwhile, many
Israeli politicians loudly protest even this proposal as
they refuse to relinquish any control over the city.

We Palestinians do not seek to divide Jerusalem; the
city already is divided. Instead, we recognize the
interests of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and seek to
share the city.

In negotiations at Camp David and elsewhere, we have
expressed willingness to reach an agreement that would
give Israel sovereignty over all of West Jerusalem in
exchange for recognition of Palestinian sovereignty over
East Jerusalem. We have proposed establishing an open
city, giving all Palestinians and Israelis, as well as
their visitors, free access to all parts of Jerusalem,
with each side retaining the ability to regulate access
from the city to other parts of its territory. We also
have been willing to consider establishing special
arrangements for the Holy City that would not only
guarantee access to Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy
sites but also would satisfy all concerned interests and
promote peaceful relations among the city's diverse
ethnic and religious communities.

Thus, we Palestinians have not been unwilling to
compromise on Jerusalem. We simply cannot abide by
arrangements that would sever the political, spiritual
and economic capital of the Palestinian people from the
independent state that we have been striving for so long
to establish. If our proposals do not reflect a
"move forward" from our initial position, it
is simply because we stand by our conviction that the
Jerusalem of the future should not be a relic of the
sectarian politics and ultra-nationalist ideologies that
have divided us in the past. It should be a symbol of
equality and tolerance for Palestinians, Israelis and
all other advocates of peace.

Israel demands sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. We
seek sovereignty only over East Jerusalem. Who is being
inflexible?

Copyright 2000
Los Angeles Times

(Reprinted in
the International Herald Tribune, Monday, 7
August 2000)